Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Maintainership, and whiners...

[Thomas Lord]

Alfred, taken out of order:

   [what user's expect]
  > 0) Fixing bugs.

  > 1) Committing fixes (it is up to the person who sends the actual fix
  >    to clean it up into a decent state, the maintainer should say 
  >    what is wrong).

  > 2) Adding a feature once in a blue moon, but it is _not_ the
  >    maintainers job to implement each and every feature that someone
  >    asks for--that is up to contributors.

Reasonable enough.  (2) is fairly important and more complicated than
you suggest.  Contributors sometimes contribute poorly designed features
that nevertheless satisfy some demand-of-the-day --- it's problematic to
just accept those because it effects the long-term health of the 
project.   Meanwhile, not being aggressive about new features can be
a problem too (e.g., there are things in git that Arch needs to catch
up to).   (1) is problematic when you get to the situation I found 
myself in: a fire-hose stream of problematic fixes from an uncooperative
source.  How much time is a maintainer supposed to spend saying what is
wrong, and being ignored, or fixing it themselves, before giving up?

   >> what would be their [a maintainer's] motive?

   > Who cares.

   >> What's their incentive?

   > Who cares.

   >> What's their reward?

   > Who cares.

Maintaining a project takes up a lot of time/money.

-t